zlacker

I don't know why you're asking for substantiation, that is common knowledge to anyone paying attention. Almost half of hospital COVID-19 patients were admitted for something else and only incidentally tested positive on admission.

https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-patients-nyc-hospitals...

>>nradov+(OP)
This is a common problem with COVID-19 threads on HN now. Happened to me several times in the past weeks. It's interesting but also very concerning just how large the knowledge gap has become between people who still support the public health restrictions and everyone else. Almost any fact you present, regardless of how basic or well known you think it is, will run into someone who thinks it's wild and crazy and has never encountered it before. That's true even if it's been admitted in public by the people who literally run the public health response!

The cause seems to be aggressive filter bubbling. We see it above too - there are highly upvoted people saying nothing more than "it can't be true, I don't believe it, it must be a right wing conspiracy". Any information that undermines government narratives just gets mentally erased, causing a distressed reaction of "that claim is CRAZY" to almost any attempt to discuss known data or facts.

>>nradov+(OP)
Firstly the date on the link you provided is from Jan 11, 2022, 9:52 AM so it's a little dated when considering a fast moving pandemic.

Further googling reveals this similar headline: "Over 40% of NYC’s COVID-infected hospital patients admitted for other reasons"

This then begs the question, if in fact 60% of people are going to hospital because of COVID that indicates a very big problem.

Hospitals by their design are always meant to be full and their size will be determined based on an expected amount of demand.

If the hospital contains these unexpected COVID cases that then means many people who need to go to hospital will not be going to hospital only because the beds are taken up by these COVID patients.

>>jussij+Ti
Respectfully, I think you are misinterpreting that headline. It's saying that of all the patients that tested positive for covid at the hospital, 40% of them were actually there for another reason. So a guy could be there for a broken arm and test positive for covid while there. He just needs to be treated for the broken arm, not covid.

>>jussij+Ti
> Firstly the date on the link you provided is from Jan 11, 2022, 9:52 AM so it's a little dated when considering a fast moving pandemic.

January 2022 would include ~3/4ths of the pandemic's time and deaths so far.

>>wonder+2n
If you have just one patient in hospital with COVID and no other ailment that will represent a degradation of the 'normal' operation of the hospital.

If you have 10% of the hospital population in hospital with COVID (and just for COVID) you will have degraded the performance of the hospital by 10%.

This is because hospitals are designed to operate at maximum capacity (i.e all the beds are in use and there is a waiting list to get a bed). Every bed in use by a COVID patient will just add someone to the waiting list.

So my question would be what percentage of patients are in hospital because of COVID and only because of COVID?

That number is a very good measure of the pressure that hospital system will be under and my guess is it will be much greater than 10%.

>>jussij+un2
Hospitals are not designed to operate at maximum capacity.

>>nradov+dj5
On any given day, our hospitals — by design — operate at 90 to 100% capacity. That's why we have sought waivers to allow critical access hospitals to operate above their licensed capacity Peel wrote.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/apr/01/jeff-jacks...